Author
Topic: Rude of them to attempt this? (Read 14162 times)

When I was a teenage they filmed the movie "The Chamber" down the street from my house. During one scene they "blew up" the fake front of the local court house causing a boom that broke several windows at my house as well as others. The movie didn't pay for anything.

I don't actually think that Mythbusters did anything wrong. It was freak accident. Also the article even says that that site has had problems before with bullets leaving the range. Seems to me the real problem is the location of the range which isn't their call.

I have to say: I'm very impressed with Adam and Jamie for not passing the buck to the build team (Kari, Grant, and Tory). Even though they weren't on site when this happened, they are the ones taking responsibility as the ones in charge of the show.

Also, what happened was that they weren't away that the cannon would "jump" as significantly as it did. That is, the weapon's reaction added to the cannonball's elevation, increasing its ascent angle. That was what caused the misfire. I'm sure they didn't do this in a vacuum. I'm sure the range officials checked it all out beforehand, gave it the okay... and were just as stunned when the projectile proceeded to soar higher than they thought.

Accidents happen. Maybe they should have their own dedicated testing range, but then... what government would allow a private company to open a munitions testing range?

The cannon jumped and affected the trajectory? Is that actually the official, verified reason for this accident? If so I'm calling everyone involved dangerously incompetent. Cannons move when they fire. Said movement affects the path of the projectile. This is not new information, it's been known for hundreds of years. I'm completely ignorant of the practical mechanics of firing a cannon but I know enough not to point the things in any direction that contains human habitations within at least a mile or two, unless you want those habitations destroyed. The article says the cannonball flew 700 yards before it hit the inhabited neighborhood. That's nothing.

If someone was shooting at targets in their backyard, missed because of a freak accident, and the bullet missed the target and tore through a house I'd call that person dangerous and rude. You don't point a loaded gun at innocent people. I don't see why making the gun much, much bigger would change that.

Also, what happened was that they weren't away that the cannon would "jump" as significantly as it did. That is, the weapon's reaction added to the cannonball's elevation, increasing its ascent angle. That was what caused the misfire. I'm sure they didn't do this in a vacuum. I'm sure the range officials checked it all out beforehand, gave it the okay... and were just as stunned when the projectile proceeded to soar higher than they thought.

Accidents happen. Maybe they should have their own dedicated testing range, but then... what government would allow a private company to open a munitions testing range?

The cannon jumped and affected the trajectory? Is that actually the official, verified reason for this accident? If so I'm calling everyone involved dangerously incompetent. Cannons move when they fire. Said movement affects the path of the projectile. This is not new information, it's been known for hundreds of years. I'm completely ignorant of the practical mechanics of firing a cannon but I know enough not to point the things in any direction that contains human habitations within at least a mile or two, unless you want those habitations destroyed. The article says the cannonball flew 700 yards before it hit the inhabited neighborhood. That's nothing.

If someone was shooting at targets in their backyard, missed because of a freak accident, and the bullet missed the target and tore through a house I'd call that person dangerous and rude. You don't point a loaded gun at innocent people. I don't see why making the gun much, much bigger would change that.

Because they're on a shooting range that has been vetted and approved for this purpose by government officials. If the range is too close to the neighborhoods, that's THEIR mistake. Mythbusters was exactly were it should be. And if the range couldn't handle a cannon, the owner and officials should never have approved it.

Also, what happened was that they weren't away that the cannon would "jump" as significantly as it did. That is, the weapon's reaction added to the cannonball's elevation, increasing its ascent angle. That was what caused the misfire. I'm sure they didn't do this in a vacuum. I'm sure the range officials checked it all out beforehand, gave it the okay... and were just as stunned when the projectile proceeded to soar higher than they thought.

Accidents happen. Maybe they should have their own dedicated testing range, but then... what government would allow a private company to open a munitions testing range?

The cannon jumped and affected the trajectory? Is that actually the official, verified reason for this accident? If so I'm calling everyone involved dangerously incompetent. Cannons move when they fire. Said movement affects the path of the projectile. This is not new information, it's been known for hundreds of years. I'm completely ignorant of the practical mechanics of firing a cannon but I know enough not to point the things in any direction that contains human habitations within at least a mile or two, unless you want those habitations destroyed. The article says the cannonball flew 700 yards before it hit the inhabited neighborhood. That's nothing.

If someone was shooting at targets in their backyard, missed because of a freak accident, and the bullet missed the target and tore through a house I'd call that person dangerous and rude. You don't point a loaded gun at innocent people. I don't see why making the gun much, much bigger would change that.

It's not that they didn't know it would happen. It's that they didn't know it would be as significant as it was.

I can see them checking back to the files of 1812...looking for precident on the insurance claims...

Has the show's insurance company made any overtures to the homeowners yet?

From what I've read, yes. They are working with everyone to make it right.

Incidentally, this isn't the first time something like this has happened. They had a show a few weeks ago where they showed one of their first bomb experiences, at a bomb range, created such a large sonic boom, it broke out windows and things in the local town.

So how many times can they destroy property and cause people inconvenience before they need to show some restraint?

In what way?

Cancel science!

Seriously though, one could argue that it's "just a TV show", but the fact is that they're doing the same type of experiments that scientists and experts do all over the world. They just happen to be doing it on camera. Any science experiment could go awry. It could have been tragic and of course they are responsible for damages/inconvenience (which, with my impression of the men, will be no issue for them) but accidents happen every day in science... two property damages in 9 years really isn't out of line.

Cancel science? Right, because that's definitely what I want to happen.

The difference this and true science is the intent (well, and the funding) unless the TV show has made any major scientific discoveries or progress that I'm unaware of?

If they want to educate, there are ways that don't involve so much risk, if they want to play or entertain they should get some perspective and scale it right down to experiments where the likelihood of uninvolved parties being seriously impacted is much, much less.

I can see them checking back to the files of 1812...looking for precident on the insurance claims...

Has the show's insurance company made any overtures to the homeowners yet?

From what I've read, yes. They are working with everyone to make it right.

Incidentally, this isn't the first time something like this has happened. They had a show a few weeks ago where they showed one of their first bomb experiences, at a bomb range, created such a large sonic boom, it broke out windows and things in the local town.

So how many times can they destroy property and cause people inconvenience before they need to show some restraint?

You mean the tiny handful of times it has happened in the 9 seasons it has been on the air?

I can see them checking back to the files of 1812...looking for precident on the insurance claims...

Has the show's insurance company made any overtures to the homeowners yet?

From what I've read, yes. They are working with everyone to make it right.

Incidentally, this isn't the first time something like this has happened. They had a show a few weeks ago where they showed one of their first bomb experiences, at a bomb range, created such a large sonic boom, it broke out windows and things in the local town.

So how many times can they destroy property and cause people inconvenience before they need to show some restraint?

You mean the tiny handful of times it has happened in the 9 seasons it has been on the air?

How many times can airplanes crash, before we ban them as too risky? How many times can people have car accidents before we ban driving automobiles, because it could hurt other people?

They took the experiment to a professional explosives range. The people who run that had a choice to say no, if they thought there was a serious risk. How much more "restraint" do you want?

Logged

My cousin's memoir of love and loneliness while raising a child with multiple disabilities will be out on Amazon soon! Know the Night, by Maria Mutch, has been called "full of hope, light, and companionship for surviving the small hours of the night."

Once the insurance rates go up unacceptably because of paid claims, there will be deemed to have been too much damage. As long as the adjusters are willing to keep the rates manageable, the show will likely remain in production.

Given some of what they have done (the water tank, most notably), I'm impressed with the safety measures they have been able to successfully implement.

Given that there have been only two incidents of note in 9 years of production speaks highly of their attention to safety. But sometimes, physics wins. To a certain extent, that's why things *must* be live tested. It all looks pretty on paper, but until it happens, it's impossible to fully anticipate the actuality.

My ex received a toy cannon for Christmas one year. 1/100th scale model. My genius of an ex decided nothing would do but to put a bit of potato in the barrel and use a mini-firecracker as the detonation. The cannon recoiled and missed the plate glass wall of our rental by less than foot. I still wonder what explaining that - and dealing with that - would have entailed.

Physics wins.

Logged

• Finally we shall place the Sun himself at the center of the Universe.

How many times can airplanes crash, before we ban them as too risky? How many times can people have car accidents before we ban driving automobiles, because it could hurt other people?

They took the experiment to a professional explosives range. The people who run that had a choice to say no, if they thought there was a serious risk. How much more "restraint" do you want?

Ok, well then maybe an additional question is 'At what point are the ends (entertainment) not worth the risks?'

Actually, that's a very good question - but it affects much more than Mythbusters. Half of the movies made today seem to use pyrotechnics excessively, and they are as much at risk of a freak accident as any Mythbusters episode (consider the number of actors hurt or killed by "blanks", for example).

I'd also ask why exactly there is an explosives range within reach of homes in the first place. And why people took the risk of living there?

Logged

My cousin's memoir of love and loneliness while raising a child with multiple disabilities will be out on Amazon soon! Know the Night, by Maria Mutch, has been called "full of hope, light, and companionship for surviving the small hours of the night."

How many times can airplanes crash, before we ban them as too risky? How many times can people have car accidents before we ban driving automobiles, because it could hurt other people?

They took the experiment to a professional explosives range. The people who run that had a choice to say no, if they thought there was a serious risk. How much more "restraint" do you want?

Ok, well then maybe an additional question is 'At what point are the ends (entertainment) not worth the risks?'

That supposes the only ends are entertainment. It also ignores the very real possibility that without a venue such as Mythbusters, there would be even more guys in back garages doing stunts like my ex did - a homemade fireworks show that started a small fire; nearly blowing out the wall with an 1/100th scale cannon, and others I probably don't know about.

At least with Mythbusters there's a venue to pose the question and some number of uninformed individuals aren't attempting these things with inadequate (or no) safety precautions.

The more important question is how many people *don't* do something because they saw it on Mythbusters, vs. the number who *do*, despite the "don't try this at home" warnings.

I watch it rarely enough that I can't tell you much that I've meaningfully learned, but I do know more about what safety mechanisms are integral on a hot water tank, and why they're there, and the worst case scenario if they were over-ridden or cascade failed.

Because I'm a science and history geek, it's cool to know to what extent paper armor was as effective as steel armor, and why it hit a fail point. (For those who didn't see the episode, paper armor was 60-80 percent as effective, and posed a considerably lesser cost on the wearer physically. To have that much more energy with that small a loss in protection might be an acceptable trade-off for quite a while.)

I'm a writer; I like to know what would *really* happen if.. and I like to see the special effects debunked. I grew up with Dukes of Hazzard and Knight Rider - it was cool to see what would *really* happen to those cars had those stunts been real.

How many times can airplanes crash, before we ban them as too risky? How many times can people have car accidents before we ban driving automobiles, because it could hurt other people?

They took the experiment to a professional explosives range. The people who run that had a choice to say no, if they thought there was a serious risk. How much more "restraint" do you want?

Ok, well then maybe an additional question is 'At what point are the ends (entertainment) not worth the risks?'

Actually, that's a very good question - but it affects much more than Mythbusters. Half of the movies made today seem to use pyrotechnics excessively, and they are as much at risk of a freak accident as any Mythbusters episode (consider the number of actors hurt or killed by "blanks", for example).

I'd also ask why exactly there is an explosives range within reach of homes in the first place. And why people took the risk of living there?

I lived in that county for 6 months and had no idea it was there!

I understood it that the purpose of the range was to practice disarming bombs, so the cannon scenario isn't exactly what it was intended for, but the managers of the facility do bear responsibility for allowing it be used for an unsuitable purpose.

That's a good point about the film industry. I've heard of many stunt-people, crew etc. being killed or injured but not of any public safety issues like this. I suppose there must have been at some point in the last 100 years or so.

EDIT: After this thread, I am going to try and watch a few episodes of Mythbusters to get a better handle on what they do. It did seem a lot like gleefully playing with dangerous toys the few times I watched it.